***OFFICIAL*** Watchmen movie thread (1 Viewer)

[videoguy505]

I read part of the graphic novel a long time ago, when it first came out. Don't remember much and I don't think I made it halfway through it (youth). Should I read the novel before seeing the movie, or let it be a surprise in the movie, then read the novel? I'm leaning towards reading it first.

Apparently the movie will have significant changes. Actually I'd lean toward seing the movie and letting the characterizations succeed or fail on their own.

 

[Corporation]

I read part of the graphic novel a long time ago, when it first came out. Don't remember much and I don't think I made it halfway through it (youth). Should I read the novel before seeing the movie, or let it be a surprise in the movie, then read the novel? I'm leaning towards reading it first.

Apparently the movie will have significant changes. Actually I'd lean toward seing the movie and letting the characterizations succeed or fail on their own.

But you're a video...guy.I'm really torn with a stupid decision, to read or not to read, that is the question.

 

[mad sweeney]

I read part of the graphic novel a long time ago, when it first came out. Don't remember much and I don't think I made it halfway through it (youth). Should I read the novel before seeing the movie, or let it be a surprise in the movie, then read the novel? I'm leaning towards reading it first.

Apparently the movie will have significant changes. Actually I'd lean toward seing the movie and letting the characterizations succeed or fail on their own.

As fun as the movie hopefully will be, it can never be anywhere near as good as the book. At this point you can read it, love it, and you won't have long term ideals for the movie to try and live up to. It's such a great comic, it needs to be read.eta:Hadn't read it since college in the early 90s, but reread it two months ago. I remembered it being good, but it was better than I remembered.

 

[Corporation]

Well I read it and really liked it. It will be really interesting to see how they fit all that into a movie.

 

[Bojang0301]

Ok I read this about two years ago and have been pretty obsessed with it ever since, especially at the thought that it would be made into a movie. The movie will be different at parts but looks to be staying true to the overall themes. There is one big change though:

I don't really like the change but have been blown away by the footage I've seen.

Anyone who is curious as to what Watchmen is about or is interested in seeing a lot more new footage here is a first look featurette: http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/123108-n...-featurette.php

Right now the movie is also in a bit of limbo due to a judge ruling in favor of Fox's suit during Christmas. Most believe their is just posturing in the threats by both WB and Fox and that it will be settled out of court and by the release date.

If you want any more info on the film check out here: http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/index.php

It's a great deal better than the official site and has a lot more info and links to video and pics.

Edit to add: If you have itunes they have the comic-con footage posted for free and that is a fabulous trailer.

 

[videoguy505]

IIRC, the same judge that's holding this up also held up WB's "Dukes of Hazzard" remake for the same reasons, and eventually that got settled OK enough for the movie to come out.

 

[Rayderr]

IIRC, the same judge that's holding this up also held up WB's "Dukes of Hazzard" remake for the same reasons, and eventually that got settled OK enough for the movie to come out.

I think we all would've been better off if the Dukes of Hazzard movie hadn't been released.

 

[videoguy505]

Interesting take on an adaptation:

Last summer, Joss Whedon (yes, he’s my master now), caused a minor sensation with his Dr. Horrible’s Sing Along Blog. One of the reasons the musical comedy about a would-be super-villain’s miserable love life was so successful — other than Whedon’s pact with Satan whereby he traded his soul, his mint condition Giant Size X-Men # 1 and a lifetime supply of HoHos in exchange for mystical word-talent – was that Whedon was standing on the shoulders of Alan Moore, the author of the landmark comic book Watchmen. More than anyone else, Moore is credited with “deconstructing” the comic book super-hero, and he probably deserves that credit. Though like with all great artistic innovators, Moore had his influences in this regard. Every artist has in his background a mob of ghostly helpers bigger than the crowd of phone technicians in that Sprint Verizon commercial. For instance, Marvel Comics (where my first loyalties lie, for the record) had already broken considerable ground in humanizing its heroes long before Moore started writing. Peter Parker, after all, was a terrible dork.

Nonetheless, Moore took the genre to grand new vistas in psychology, political commentary and literature (see, for a mere taste, Eve Tushnet’s sprawling essay comparing it to Shakespeare’s Measure For Measure [link for Tushnet's essay requires you scroll down a bit to Friday, January 23rd at 12:02am -- Ed]). Watchmen is a brilliant accomplishment and deserves the bulk of its sometimes gob-smackingly good press. Though I’ll leave it to others to debate whether it belongs on Time magazine’s list of the 100 best novels since 1923 (the only graphic novel on the list). But the man’s influence on comics and Hollywood has been enormous, if not necessarily obvious to folks who don’t know who he is or only know him from the movie adaptations of V for Vendetta or From Hell. Whedon’s own Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel can easily be seen as Moore’s grandchildren.

This March, after decades of typical Hollywood rigmarole and creative argy-bargy, the film adaptation of Watchmen is finally going to hit screens and Watchmen-mania is running its course like a particular bad case of fanboy (and fangirl) St. Vitus’ Dance. I’m very excited to see it myself. But lots of people, starting with Moore himself, simply don’t believe Watchmen will work as a movie. My fingers are crossed, but I think they have the better part of the argument.

Regardless, if for no other reason than this is a new blog at the intersection of politics and Hollywood, there’s one thing that should at least be pointed out: Much of the political vision of Watchmen – and Watchmen was a deeply political piece of work – is horribly outdated today and was, in the grand scheme of things, just plain wrong when it came out. Moore intended the book to be at least in part a biting indictment of Reagan and Thatcher and the Cold War in general. He saw the book as explicitly anti-Reagan, if not necessarily anti-American (Reagan doesn’t actually appear in Watchmen).

This exposes one of the problems with Moore’s political vision: he seems to think the Cold War was a purely Reaganite phenomena that descended on America like a dark curtain thanks in part to the death of JFK. In Moore’s alternative universe Richard Nixon, a stand-in for Reagan, is serving out his fifth term as president. The title “Watchmen” is an allusion to a real JFK speech – “We are the watchmen of freedom” – that was never delivered because of the assassination, which in Moore’s alternate reality was probably masterminded by Nixon. It’s never said outright, but it’s strongly suggested that everything went wrong geopolitically after that. For example, JFK apparently wouldn’t have approved the use of superheroes in Vietnam (superheroes being something of a stand-in for nuclear weapons in this case. It’s complicated.).

But this is nonsense. Kennedy was an outright Cold War hawk who ran to Nixon’s right in 1960 on such issues as the “missile gap.” While Nixon certainly had very solid anti-Communist credentials, when he actually became president, Nixon ended the Vietnam War, recognized Communist China and ushered in an era of détente with the Soviets.

But that’s a nitpick about what may be a defensible thematic device. The real problem with Moore’s anti-Reaganite vision is that it places the blame for the omnipresent climate of fear on Reagan himself. (Apparently, Moore was unaware of, say, the Kennedy-era “duck-and-cover” ads). In the 1980s the greatest fear-mongering could be found not in Reagan’s “Morning in America” themes but in left-wing critiques like Moore’s. Films like the British “Threads“ or the watered-down American made-for-TV movie “The Day After,” were far more relentless in scaring the hell out of people than anything Reagan ever said or did. This was the deliberate tactic of the SANE Freeze crowd in and out of Hollywood, which thought it was their duty to make Americans more scared of their own government than they were of the Soviets. And the miasma of conspiratorial phobias that hangs over Watchmen’s universe is one that suggests Western governments were not only to blame for Cold War tensions, but that Western governments were actually the real villains.

This is not to say that Moore’s vision is cartoonish or even comic-bookish. It is deadly serious and he leaves many things open to diverse interpretations. Indeed, the greatest villain of the book is an idealistic, liberal-leaning, megalomaniac. But the existential angst and moral nihilism that serves as the spine of the book isn’t a product of Reaganism, but of the left’s ill-advised, ahistoric, and self-indulgent response to Reaganism. And, oh yeah: let the word go forth that Reagan’s vision proved correct barely a few years after Watchmen’s release. Meanwhile, Moore’s political vision – in part because it was so wrong – seems like 80’s kitsch today, which may be one of the reasons so many people believe the book is untranslatable to the big screen. Again, I hope the naysayers are wrong about that. I also hope the producers don’t try to cram the story into today’s left-wing critiques of the war on terror either which would, in a stroke, prove the naysayers right.

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jgoldber...t-for-watchmen/

 

[Corporation]

Interesting read videoguy. I think they will update the storylines a little bit. Nothing I've read, just a hunch.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

Thanks for bumping this thread and reminding me:

Delayed?

 

[videoguy505]

Thanks for bumping this thread and reminding me:

Delayed?

I think this is the same thing we talked about a page or so ago, the new deal is WB is willing to forgo a jury trial, they are just going to go with whatever the judge in the appeal says.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

Thanks for bumping this thread and reminding me:

Delayed?

I think this is the same thing we talked about a page or so ago, the new deal is WB is willing to forgo a jury trial, they are just going to go with whatever the judge in the appeal says.

Yeah, sorry. It was one of those "thought I saw the end of the thread, made a post, then reread above my post and realized it was a honda" kinda moments.

 

[videoguy505]

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/watc...-shut-up-larry/

Lawyers for both Fox and Warner Bros asked federal judge Gary Feess today to delay an upcoming hearing in the Watchmen case because "settlement talks have been productive" and need to continue over the weekend. The special conference had been requested by WB attorneys in order to move up the January 20th date at which Judge Feess hands down his ruling that could change the release date of Watchmen off March 6th. The judge granted the postponement but is sticking, for now, to his January 20th date. According to court documents, Fox and Warner Bros have conducted the settlement talks since last weekend and made concessions. This is surprising since WB lawyers announced they would continue to fight immediately after Feess announced his intention to rule in favor of Fox for copyight infringement and distribution rights.

:cautiouslyoptimistic:

 

[HellToupee]

Seeing the commercial during the game today I was happy to see the rating was R and not dumbed down to pg-13

 

[bosoxs45]

Seeing the commercial during the game today I was happy to see the rating was R and not dumbed down to pg-13

 

[videoguy505]

CRISIS AVERTED?!

In the penultimate episode of their Watchmen soap opera, lawyers for Fox and Warner Bros. have filed a motion of settlement that will resolve the film's ongoing rights battle Friday morning.

Numerous reports noted a hearing scheduled today for 3:30 — a day after the studios filed a notice of settlement status that presumably detailed the texture, dimensions and flavor of the pound of flesh Fox would be extracting from Warner's. THR now writes that the hearing has been delayed until Friday morning at 9:30, "at which point the parties will announce they have settled the case." And all will be right at last with the fanboy universe, at least until some imminent Dark Knight Oscar snub next Tuesday reignites their pants-wetting ire. Be prepared.

http://reporter.blogs.com/thresq/2009/01/w...nced-today.html

WatchmenWatch: Settlement status report filed; hearing today

By Eriq Gardner

The parties involved in the "Watchmen" dispute filed a notice of settlement status yesterday in court, making it official that settlement talks are making progress.

According to the filing, the parties are "continuing to address a few remaining settlement issues" and have requested a hearing today at 3:30 PM "to report on a final resolution or, alternatively, to discuss how to proceed on January 20, 2009." Nothing like deadlines to get the ball rolling.

Here's the filed status report.

UPDATED: The hearing is now scheduled for tomorrow at 9:30 am, at which point the parties will announce they have settled the case.

2ND UPDATE: Warners and Fox are still denying the settlement is final. But bottom line, it's all done except for the signatures.

So at 9:30 AM, we'll likely hear that all is well. Although there's a slight chance it can get all fubar'ed between now and then, in which case we'll hear the trial starts Tuesday.

 

[videoguy505]

It's a done deal. Here's the press release: "Warner Bros. and Twentieth Century Fox have resolved their dispute regarding the rights to the upcoming motion picture Watchmen in a confidential settlement. Warner Bros acknowledges that Fox acted in good faith in bringing its claims, which were asserted prior to the start of principal photography. Fox acknowledges that Warner Bros. acted in good faith in defending against those claims Warner Bros. and Fox, like all Watchmen fans, look forward with great anticipation to this film's March 6 release in theatres."

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/fina...men-settlement/

Warner Will Distribute; Fox Gets 8 1/2% Gross + Cash + Piece Of Sequels/Spinoffs

The deal is finally done, and Warner Bros' highly anticipated Watchmen -- based on the comic book series/graphic novel written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons -- won't be held hostage. I'm hearing that in tonight's settlement, Fox will not be an active distributor of the pic, but will receive up to 8 1/2% gross participation in the pic, and a piece of everything going forward including a sequel or spinoff, and a cash payment upfront including recoupment of its development costs and attorney fees, and god-only-knows what else. Because neither Fox nor Warner Bros would comment on the terms. But Legendary Pictures already owns a chunk of Watchmen. So cutting Fox in now as another partner really plays havoc with Warner Bros' economics on the movie. Studios hate when that happens.

[FYI, The Hollywood Reporter jumped the gun on this settlement story and got it wrong. Twice in one week for the two trades. Though THR posted at 5:25 PM PT that the deal was done, the fact is that my sources said important issues had yet to be resolved. Only at 7:15 PM was the studios' settlement concluded. Also THR claimed at first that Fox didn't get a piece of Watchmen going forward in a sequel or spinoff. But the trade corrected this at 8:30 PM.]

The settlement will be presented on Friday at 9:30 AM to federal judge Gary Feess who set this in motion in the first place by letting all sides know in December that he intended to side with Fox's claims against Warner Bros for copyright infringement and distribution rights on Watchmen. This is a case where producer Larry Gordon's hot property changed hands again and again since the late 1980s from Fox, to Universal, to Paramount, until finally to Warner Bros and Legendary Pictures which together went forward with the $130 million film despite knowing that Fox had claims which led to the lawsuit. The next legal step might have been an injunction against Watchmen's March 6th release. Initially, Warner Bros said it would fight Feess' intention to side with Fox and appeal.

But then, according to my sources, Warner Bros boss Barry Meyer stepped up and stopped that, and his studio finally started talking settlement with Fox last week. So now, Warner Bros can release Watchmen domestically as planned, and Paramount (which also had to sign off on the settlement) play it internationally, and Fox reap the rewards, and fans of the comic book series/graphic novel can rejoice -- or find something else about the movie to ##### about...

Need I remind that this isn't the only controversy in which Watchmen has been embroiled. Though the film's footage that has been shown has garnered high marks from fans, director Zack Snyder's admission that he's changed the ending has rankled many -- and he's also been dismissive of anyone who considers that a big deal. And Watchmen fans appreciated the irony of Warner Bros being hit with a lawsuit over the rights to the movie because it was DC Comics’ screwing of Watchmen writer Alan Moore over both the merchandising rights and a rights-reversion clause to his comics that resulted in his putting a curse on the movie.

 

[Rayderr]

It's a done deal. Here's the press release: "Warner Bros. and Twentieth Century Fox have resolved their dispute regarding the rights to the upcoming motion picture Watchmen in a confidential settlement. Warner Bros acknowledges that Fox acted in good faith in bringing its claims, which were asserted prior to the start of principal photography. Fox acknowledges that Warner Bros. acted in good faith in defending against those claims Warner Bros. and Fox, like all Watchmen fans, look forward with great anticipation to this film's March 6 release in theatres."

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/fina...men-settlement/

Warner Will Distribute; Fox Gets 8 1/2% Gross + Cash + Piece Of Sequels/Spinoffs

The deal is finally done, and Warner Bros' highly anticipated Watchmen -- based on the comic book series/graphic novel written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons -- won't be held hostage. I'm hearing that in tonight's settlement, Fox will not be an active distributor of the pic, but will receive up to 8 1/2% gross participation in the pic, and a piece of everything going forward including a sequel or spinoff, and a cash payment upfront including recoupment of its development costs and attorney fees, and god-only-knows what else. Because neither Fox nor Warner Bros would comment on the terms. But Legendary Pictures already owns a chunk of Watchmen. So cutting Fox in now as another partner really plays havoc with Warner Bros' economics on the movie. Studios hate when that happens.

[FYI, The Hollywood Reporter jumped the gun on this settlement story and got it wrong. Twice in one week for the two trades. Though THR posted at 5:25 PM PT that the deal was done, the fact is that my sources said important issues had yet to be resolved. Only at 7:15 PM was the studios' settlement concluded. Also THR claimed at first that Fox didn't get a piece of Watchmen going forward in a sequel or spinoff. But the trade corrected this at 8:30 PM.]

The settlement will be presented on Friday at 9:30 AM to federal judge Gary Feess who set this in motion in the first place by letting all sides know in December that he intended to side with Fox's claims against Warner Bros for copyright infringement and distribution rights on Watchmen. This is a case where producer Larry Gordon's hot property changed hands again and again since the late 1980s from Fox, to Universal, to Paramount, until finally to Warner Bros and Legendary Pictures which together went forward with the $130 million film despite knowing that Fox had claims which led to the lawsuit. The next legal step might have been an injunction against Watchmen's March 6th release. Initially, Warner Bros said it would fight Feess' intention to side with Fox and appeal.

But then, according to my sources, Warner Bros boss Barry Meyer stepped up and stopped that, and his studio finally started talking settlement with Fox last week. So now, Warner Bros can release Watchmen domestically as planned, and Paramount (which also had to sign off on the settlement) play it internationally, and Fox reap the rewards, and fans of the comic book series/graphic novel can rejoice -- or find something else about the movie to ##### about...

Need I remind that this isn't the only controversy in which Watchmen has been embroiled. Though the film's footage that has been shown has garnered high marks from fans, director Zack Snyder's admission that he's changed the ending has rankled many -- and he's also been dismissive of anyone who considers that a big deal. And Watchmen fans appreciated the irony of Warner Bros being hit with a lawsuit over the rights to the movie because it was DC Comics’ screwing of Watchmen writer Alan Moore over both the merchandising rights and a rights-reversion clause to his comics that resulted in his putting a curse on the movie.

They better not screw up the Watchmen name by doing sequels or spinoffs.

 

[videoguy505]

They better not screw up the Watchmen name by doing sequels or spinoffs.

What, you don't think Rorshach deserves his own Saturday morning cartoon series? Maybe with a dog sidekick helper?

 

[Corporation]

I'd like to know how DC screwed Alan Moore, I haven't heard anything about that.

 

[videoguy505]

4 weeks to go

 

[biggamer3]

Never really heard of these comics but the previews look damn cool.

Will watch this film no doubt

 

[SierraKiloBravo]

I'm sure that we all actually have Dr. Manhattan to thank for settlement. I, for one, am quite happy.

 

[Dash]

UK film web site with playable 8-bit arcade game...

 

[jdoggydogg]

Juicy scuttlebutt from the Alan Moore story (from the Onion AV Club):

Producer Don Murphy calls Alan Moore "a hypocrite" and "a liar"

by Noel Murray February 16, 2009

Last week, on his news-and-opinions site Hollywood Elsewhere, Jeffrey Wells posted a fairly typical quote from Watchmen creator Alan Moore regarding his opinion of the upcoming big screen adaptation. (In short: He's agin' it. And he wishes the money spent on the movie were being used to "sort out the civil unrest in Haiti.") The comments on Wells' post quickly split into the standard "Moore is a man of rare integrity" versus "Why does Moore keep trying to make me feel bad for wanting an Ozymandias action figure?" factions that should be familiar to anyone who's spent any time reading about comics on the internet over the past 10 years. And then another voice was heard: Hollywood geek-flick producer Don Murphy, who worked on the Moore-derided big screen versions of From Hell and The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Murphy wrote:



Alan Moore is a hypocrite and a liar.

--He took a million dollars from Fox for League- he did not HAVE to do so

--He claims that he never saw League so why does he get to comment on the merits of it? YOU can say what you want to- but he never saw it

--He has made over $3 million dollars on the increased sales of the Watchmen hardcover due to the film- he isn't returning that money

--He sold the rights to Watchmen in 1988

--He attacked V for Vendetta back when it came out- after he had sold those rights

--He is an old man who smokes too much hash and prays to a lizard god. Don't buy his bull####.

In the days since, Murphy has stuck to his guns, claiming that Moore's vaunted integrity means little, since he already banked most of what he's owed for the properties at which he now takes potshots. Of course since Murphy himself is famous for being beaten up in public by Quentin Tarantino (and receiving $450 in compensation) and going ballistic over the anonymous, publicly-edited nature of Wikipedia, his own credibility may be a little shaky. Still, Murphy's point about how Moore plays fast-and-loose with other people's creations and then gets tetchy when it happens to him is one worth considering. And at the least, his rants on HE are entertaining in their unhingedness.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

So, um...........anybody know when tickets go on sale?

 

[Bob Magaw]

i forget what piqued my interest to ALMOST read watchmen a few years ago... now that i think of it, it was probably reading ABOUT alan moore & watchmen when from hell came out (which i did read, & was impressed... more like a novel than what i remembered comics being like, & being about jack the ripper & not pulling any punches, obviously mature content)...

the trailer looked amazing... i also struggled whether i should just read it later, as EVERYBODY was saying it was unfilmable (including moore, of course)... i read it, & boy, am i glad i did... truly one of the most intense reading experiences of my life... i cheated by reading the wikipedia page first, so i had spoilers... but it is such a dense, massively layered, symbolism drenched & intertextual work of art that i felt i got some things out of that i might not have otherwise by doing it that way (still, wouldn't recommend it to most)...

i can see where the almost reverence for the original comes in, that could come across as fanboyism, as if it was the ark of the covenant & can't be deviated from in even the smallest minutia, or it will be catastrophic failure... i get that it is as dense as a mile thick block of granite... i just think it will be a separate work of art... there is the graphic novel (which is unfilmable in its entirety, but you could say that about just any novel, like cormac mccarthy, so why so different, & why the ruckus & uproar here?), & there will be the movie... they can be evaluated on their own merits, SEPARATELY...

i think the key is, does zac snyder GET IT... will it be done in the spirit of the graphic novel... after seeing the trailers & reading the below article from this month's WIRED (also check out some cool sidebar interviews of writer moore & illustrator gibbons... the latter had some participation in the film, which i don't recall being noted in the snyder article, at least to the extent that is conveyed in the gibbons interview), i'm enthused & optimistic that snyder was the right man, at the right time, at the right place for the job, to quote gibbons...

of course not everything can be included, but it looks like much of the right stuff will be included to convey a large part of the flavor & spirit (witness the decision to not make it contemporary, but keep it faithful to the original period)...

j-dog is right, it says below that one of the later cuts was 3 hours, but the studio forced snyder to realize (& he eventually agreed, aside from the fact that he had no choice ) that it had to be cut... i think final cut is about 2 1/2 hours... this is going to go to DVD/blu-ray really quickly (3-4 months?), not sure if we will get deleted scenes or extended directors cut, but i imagine that might be a possibility... i think they are releasing the ancillary, intercut inside the graphic novel pirate material right away separately on DVD, so perhaps that will be included later in the definitive edition?

for those that haven't read this... A - i would urge anybody to do so, & B - a good way to convey what a brilliant job moore did in writing it & gibbons did in illustrating it, was the pirate material... who else would have even attempted or included that (a story inside a story, BTW, which would have been an inconsequential toss off in the wrong hands)? & the way they carried it out & executed it was pure, unadulterated genius... not just in the pitch perfect writing style & graphic representation, but in the way it thematically interesected with & was interwoven into key junctures of the novel proper...

to quote emmit smith... IT BLOWED UP MY BRAIN!

needless to say i can't wait for this... definitely looks like a big screen experience, & i'll buy the blu-ray when it comes out...

for a last stab at those encountering it for the first time, to attempt to wrap your mind around & describe such a dense, multi-levelled work does inevitably fail to capture important aspects... but it is a post-modern take on heroism in society, was i take it the most mature comic of its kind to ever emerge from the genre up to that time (& arguably since... but frank miller's dark knight also oft-cited as a seminal graphic novel, in terms of maturity & darkness, & though i haven't read the latter, but know of miller's work from 300 & sin city, i would guess its doubtfull if could match it in terms of complexity & insight into the human condition), & gave the genre a shot in the arm by, probably for the first time, catapulting it into the realms of respectability as literature (the cover of the graphic novel states that it made TIMEs 100 greatest novels of the 20th century list... i'd agree with that appraisal)... hope that wasn't too heavyhandedly didactic...

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywo...-03/ff_watchman

 

[bosoxs45]

So, um...........anybody know when tickets go on sale? :whoosh:

already got my tickets.

 

[Corporation]

I'm still pumped!

 

[Pooch]

Going to see this on Sunday. Here's a review from the Orlando Sentinel:

"Watchmen" Review

Watchmen’

By Roger Moore

The Orlando Sentinel

(MCT)

The long-awaited film of Alan Moore’s classic comic book/graphic novel “Watchmen” is a work that’s easier to ponder than enjoy.

Director Zack Snyder has delivered a literal, almost page-by-page transcription of Moore and Dave Gibbons’ messianic, End of Days superhero epic. It gives you a lot to chew on in its 2 hours and 40 minutes. But as striking as it is to absorb and behold, as literal as the adaptation is, “Watchmen” rarely hits the thrilling or entertaining stride that Snyder’s “300” had from start to finish.

Costumed heroes, “vigilantes,” have been illegal for years. Most of those who came to fame in the 1940s and ’50s have hung up their capes, tights and masks and slipped back into normal life.

But now, in their 60s, somebody is killing them off. We see the sadistic thug The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) give as good as he gets, but die a violent death anyway. We hear the masked Rorschach, played by Jackie Earle Haley in a “Dark Knight” growl, narrate his investigation into the crime.

“One of us died tonight. Somebody knows why. Somebody knows.”

In this alternate 1985, Vietnam was a “win” and Richard Nixon never left office. He and Kissinger are into their second decade in power with World War III still just an eyeblink away. America’s secret weapon? Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), a nude, blue nearly omnipotent hero-god who was once human but who is losing his connection to humanity. And when his girlfriend, the former Silk Spectre (Malin Akerman), ditches him, he exiles himself to Mars. The World War the world avoided may happen after all. The Watchmen won’t be around to prevent it.

“It’s too late,” the ethereal Dr. Manhattan prophesies. “Always has been. Always will be.”

Who’s behind all this? The twisted and ruthless Rorschach teams with his old friend, the brainy and less violent Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson) to bust heads (and arms, and legs) to get to the bottom of the killings, no matter that the world is about to end. Another “mask,” the world’s smartest man Ozymandias (Matthew Goode), is enlisted. But he’s in deep with Dr. Manhattan’s plan to solve the world’s energy problems in one fell swoop.

Snyder fills the screen with eye candy. But the violence of the comic book is here, too; brutal murders, dismemberments, attempted rape. The sex is graphic, the violence more so.

What Snyder and his team add to the mid-’80s comic is a pop-cultural mashup sensibility. Bad impersonators abound, from a heavily made-up Nixon to a feeble Ted Koppel and Lee Iacocca. On the soundtrack, “99 Luftballoons” crashes into “All Along the Watchtower.”

The film’s dizzying array of flashbacks (also from the graphic novel) gives only a couple of actors enough time to shine. Haley is a ferocious presence, Akerman is comic-book sex incarnate and Wilson does a nice Clark Kent turn as the reason-over-violence hero.

At every turn, long pauses in the action force us to chew on what the Brit Moore, who went on to write the more obvious jeremiad “V for Vendetta,” was getting at. “Watchmen” is Biblical and political and psychological and not the least bit whimsical. And after absorbing it over those 2 hours and 40 odd minutes, the best you can say of the filmmakers is that they did what no team before could manage: They got the movie made.

“Why’d we do it?”

“No one else would.”

 

[videoguy505]

Sneak previews today, nationwide tomorrow.

Unfortunately, been getting mixed reviews. Know a guy who caught a DGA screening the other night, didn't like it. Critics haven't loved it. I guess we shouldn't go in expecting it to be one of the 100 best movies of all time.

 

[Buckna]

Just got back from the midnight screening.

Big . Amazing visuals and action and music. Some very compelling characters and drama. The first 2 hours are a freaking amazing thrill ride with some bad ### hard, core nitty gritty fighting. The vigilantes in this movie don't pull their punches, they kill and they kill with flair and all the heat and anger would come from being in a situation and dealing with the ugly side of life. This movie is not cleaned up or sanitized, it is bloody and seedy and shows the nasty side of things and earns it's R rating just like 300 did. Denny Duquet from Grey's Anatomy steals the show as the Comedian and he's only in about a third of the movie.

My buddy loved it the whole way thru, but I have to admit that I thought the last 30 minutes or so dragged. Maybe I was getting tired since it was 2 in the morning, I don't know. Don't let that discourage you from seeing it, it's an amazing spectacle of a film to watch.

I already want to watch it again.

 

[Gadfly]

I liked it. Going in knowing nothing about the Watchmen, I thought there were some interesting characters, good action and visuals, a few thought-provoking concepts and some twists I didn't see coming.

 

[No. 16]

Just got back from the midnight showing and I don't think this movie will make as much money as they're hoping.

It'll strictly be a niche film for Watchmen fanboys. I own the graphic novel and if I wasn't a fan of Watchmen the graphic novel I don't think I'd like Watchmen the movie.

I went with 5 of my other friends who have never read the comic book and they didn't like the movie at all and I can totally see where they are coming from. The movie doesn't stray from the book, which is a great thing for those of us who have read the graphic novel, but for those who haven't they don't get the complete picture of the storyline that the book gave.

Visually the movie is fantastic, but past all the glitz and glamor you get a storyline that doesn't feel fleshed out, dramatic scenes that just fall flat, and a movie that just drags. The movie just has no soul, no feeling... a good movie makes you react, but aside from the action scenes, you just sit there and observe. There's no suspense, no sadness, no nothing.

I think part of what went wrong is that the movie didn't focus on the main storyline as much as it should have because it had to tack on all the past history of the characters. This should have been made into an HBO mini-series in order to have the same impact as the book did in telling the story.

If you read Watchmen definitely watch the movie, but if you didn't I wouldn't go into it expecting to be blown away and I'd probably suggest to wait for it on rental, bootleg, or see it during matinee.

 

[flysack]

A.O. Scott fleeced it in the times as an adolescent's vision of the human condition - a precocious adolescent who just read some Nietzsche.

I disagree in regard to the book. But it sounded like A.O. Scott didn't read the book - he was reacting to the movie alone (and rightly so; he IS a movie critic).

However, this is also the same critic who thought Iron Man was amazing, and I thought it average at best/

A.O. Scott Review in NYT

 

[Sam Quentin]

 

[Moe Green]

Have to admit I've lowered my expectations with this. At first the trailers looked great, but now I've grown tired of all the slo-mo shots and exaggerated efforts to eke out dramatic effect.

There's just no way they can do this story justice within the constraints of a 2 1/2 hour film.

 

[snitwitch]

A.O. Scott fleeced it in the times as an adolescent's vision of the human condition - a precocious adolescent who just read some Nietzsche.

I disagree in regard to the book. But it sounded like A.O. Scott didn't read the book - he was reacting to the movie alone (and rightly so; he IS a movie critic).

However, this is also the same critic who thought Iron Man was amazing, and I thought it average at best/

A.O. Scott Review in NYT

Totally agree about Iron Man -- I did not see what all the hype was about.

 

[No. 16]

Another thing is the acting is horrible aside from the comedian everyone sucked. I just re-read the book and they come nowhere close to doing the climax justice in the movie.

 

[SierraKiloBravo]

Yeah but does Carla Gugino look as fetching as always?

 

[No. 16]

Yeah but does Carla Gugino look as fetching as always?

If you like the Chris Brown induced Rhianna look.

 

[Jason Wood]

Going to be hard for me to be objective on this one, but I trying really hard to judge it for itself and not as a faithful adaptation of the series.

 

[Walton Goggins]

Sneak previews today, nationwide tomorrow.Unfortunately, been getting mixed reviews. Know a guy who caught a DGA screening the other night, didn't like it. Critics haven't loved it. I guess we shouldn't go in expecting it to be one of the 100 best movies of all time.

When it kept being held back and some scenes I think were redone it's pretty much a given it won't be nearly as good, perhaps even bad, as you think.

 

[No. 16]

Going to be hard for me to be objective on this one, but I trying really hard to judge it for itself and not as a faithful adaptation of the series.

Than you'll hate it.

 

[Jason Wood]

Going to be hard for me to be objective on this one, but I trying really hard to judge it for itself and not as a faithful adaptation of the series.

Than you'll hate it.

Dunno...lots of hard core Watchmen geeks telling me it's frighteningly faithful to the book.

 

[No. 16]

Going to be hard for me to be objective on this one, but I trying really hard to judge it for itself and not as a faithful adaptation of the series.

Than you'll hate it.

Dunno...lots of hard core Watchmen geeks telling me it's frighteningly faithful to the book.

Well you said you were going to judge it for itself and not as a faithful adaptation of the series. If you read Watchmen and love Watchmen it is a fairly direct translation of the book, but without that prior knowledge or attachment as a movie it just falls flat IMO due to poor storytelling, acting, and poor direction of people. I think for the most part only those who have read the book will enjoy the movie, but at the same time will still be saddened because it does not capture the moment as well as the book. For those who have never read the book, I think most will see it for a movie that has style but no substance, which is sad because we're talking about Watchmen.

 

[Abrantes]

Although I didn't actively dislike the film, it still left me cold. It delivers most of the key moments in the original, but lacks the comic book's sense of purpose. I don't know. Several of the scenes could've just as easily been left off or implied, and many of them reek of mere fan service. I understand that Snyder is a fan and wanted to keep everything in there, but the compromise doesn't work. They couldn't hope to fit the entire graphic novel in, but still tried to jam everything together in a thrill-ride blockbuster.

Could've been better. :(

 

[bosoxs45]

Just got back from the midnight showing and I don't think this movie will make as much money as they're hoping. It'll strictly be a niche film for Watchmen fanboys. I own the graphic novel and if I wasn't a fan of Watchmen the graphic novel I don't think I'd like Watchmen the movie. I went with 5 of my other friends who have never read the comic book and they didn't like the movie at all and I can totally see where they are coming from. The movie doesn't stray from the book, which is a great thing for those of us who have read the graphic novel, but for those who haven't they don't get the complete picture of the storyline that the book gave. Visually the movie is fantastic, but past all the glitz and glamor you get a storyline that doesn't feel fleshed out, dramatic scenes that just fall flat, and a movie that just drags. The movie just has no soul, no feeling... a good movie makes you react, but aside from the action scenes, you just sit there and observe. There's no suspense, no sadness, no nothing. I think part of what went wrong is that the movie didn't focus on the main storyline as much as it should have because it had to tack on all the past history of the characters. This should have been made into an HBO mini-series in order to have the same impact as the book did in telling the story.If you read Watchmen definitely watch the movie, but if you didn't I wouldn't go into it expecting to be blown away and I'd probably suggest to wait for it on rental, bootleg, or see it during matinee.

It was quite good, but not great.

 

[timschochet]

I loved the book. And the movie is faithful to the book. Perhaps it's TOO faithful.

There's something missing.

 

[Corporation]

Haven't read FBG reviews yet. T - 1:30 until I go see it. Will report back.